By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – On a night when a fifth Councilmember, Donna Neville was sworn in, and the meeting went past 2 am, the council ultimately spent 40 minutes deciding not to do anything on Tuesday (or even Wednesday morning).
It was a long agenda to begin with—the swearing in of Donna Neville, the I-80 Caltrans Expansion Project, the Rotating Winter Shelter, and ultimately long-range housing discussions.
The subcommittee of Mayor Will Arnold and Councilmember Bapu Vaitla presented their colleagues with their LEED ND framework for evaluating projects. Four of the five applicants spoke before council as well as a number of community members and community groups.
But as the time ticked to 1 am and the budget discussion still looming, Mayor Arnold suggested continuing the discussion. It ultimately was pushed to June 20, but it took about 40 minutes to get there.
“Point of order, the clock striking 1:11 am and a time sensitive item that we have coming up next, that we need to tackle 
tonight,” Mayor Arnold said. “I’m putting to my colleagues a point of order where we can discuss how to proceed to tonight.”
He said, “I’ll put a suggestion out there that we continue this item to a future council meeting.”
Councilmember Donna Neville said, “I think the only concern I have, and I certainly understand given the hour and our need to take up the budget, why we would not want to continue this now. But, I also know that time is really of the essence here in terms of making a decision about which of the projects do or do not go ahead with their EIRs.”
Councilmember Gloria Partida said, “I think that, that we’ve already had a conversation that we weren’t gonna try to push to be on the 2024 ballot.”
But Mayor Arnold noted that even delaying for two weeks “does limit our options.”
In terms of time sensitivity, City Manager Mike Webb noted, “If the council is inclined towards leaving any semblance of opportunity for November 2024 on the table, then we need to have definitive clear direction no later than June 20 to be able to have any chance of accomplishing that.”
For 2025, he offered there is “more breathing room than that.”
Councilmember Bapu Vaitla said “the only thing with that we were brought back here to develop some evaluation criteria for the various proposals, and the staff recommendation is that the applicants, if they so choose, would get us back that information by the 12th so we can make a decision by the 20th.”
Councilmember Neville offered, “One possibility is that we do request that the project applicants respond to it as is, and that in doing so, it, it gives us some additional feedback about the criteria themselves”
Vice Mayor Josh Chapman responded, “We voted on this or had this conversation that we were very clear, and I understand things change, that we wanted to wait and not have something on the 2024 ballot. So that’s my assumption. The June 20 date that’s in here is driven by the continued pressure or desire to possibly put something on that ballot. I’m not in that camp. I am 100% okay and fine with us not putting something on the ballot in 2024.”
Councilmember Partida explained that she is also in that camp.
She said, “This is a great rubric, and I appreciate the work that was put into it, and I think it puts us on the solid ground for having an objective way to judge projects that will be coming forward until we get our general plan, which I think is going to be very important for us to do.”
However, she suggested and ultimately made the motion to put forward two projects as EIRs started while the rubric goes through commissions for evaluation. The two projects were Village Farms and the Shriner’s Project. Michael Faust from Pioneer Community felt their application was not ready yet while Matt Keasling, representing Palomino, felt they were in a different boat altogether.
Councilmember Vaitla opposed the motion from the outset.
“I’m very very strongly opposed to that motion,” Vaitla said. “The point of creating a rubric and starting on that process was to understand the design elements that would go into deciding whether to approve starting an EIR.”
Partida noted, “There’s stuff we can get started that still leaves time for whatever comes back from the commissions to apply to inform the EIR.”
The city staff explained that the initial weeks would be finding an EIR consultant and lining up the scope of the work. In that time, commissions would have time to evaluate the rubric and refine it.
Partida said, “And what I’m thinking is that by that time, the rubric will have gone through commissions hopefully, or have been very close to being, to have gone through those steps.”
Neville expressed concern about delaying the EIR.
“These are the two big developments that are offering housing,” he said referring to Village and Shriner’s. “I don’t feel that right now, it’s 1:40 am, I don’t want to be making decisions to advance an EIR when that’s not even what I expected this agenda item to be about.”
In the end, only Partida supported the motion and it failed 4-1.
The council then agreed to continue this to a future council meeting.
There are many substantial issues with high public interest facing council. Last night also had budget review! We need less packed agendas and more frequent council meetings. We have four “on call” meetings this summer. We know our residents are engaged. Let’s embrace a meaningful deliberative process instead of cramping it.
It’s a good point Francesca. At the start of the meeting last night, I remarked to Mike Webb, we should have broken this up into two meetings and his response is we did and we still ended up with this. I can tell you when I started the Vanguard in 2006, the council met three or four times every month and it was a rare Tuesday to have off. They’ve now gone to two meetings a month. Then again, 2 am meetings were a regular occurrence in 2006 but rare now. Still, I’m feeling it.
In my comments last night/morning, I suggested that the proposed rubric along with Robb Davis’ article and the proposal from group led by Wheeler (and I couldn’t tell if that was separate from the UCD class project) has opened up an opportunity for fruitful dialogue that the City should facilitate in a forum. The sustainability guidelines from the NRC proposed for DISC and the Nishii standards should be included. That forum could be public meetings of the Council subcommittee. Solving this is going to take a more concerted effort by the Council. It also may require City staff loosening control and letting citizens run more of the process, as was done in 2014 on the water rates and proposing VCEA.
John Johnston made an excellent point last night that the LEED ND rubric goes too far with “point scoring.” He pointed out how a developer could trade off taking out a heritage tree with installing district heating. How are those two related? I’m concerned the Council is looking for a quick fix that could derail a better solution that could be more durable and avoid building up unrealistic expectations.
I think the Council did the right thing in the end by continuing to the next meeting their discussion over the LEED ND “rubic” and whether to put any EIR’s for peripheral development in motion, but we are still on a slippery slope. Simply inviting “self-evaluations” of their LEED score by the developers implies that we will continue the process of reacting to proposals rather than actually planning our future. Admittedly, it’s our own high standards of process that have put our fingerprints on the housing crisis as clearly as the recalcitrant cities, but we can’t be picking favorites over who is most ready to roll or even who is best located.
So back to that elusive General Plan? It’s certainly a great excuse to put off any peripheral development forever and works especially for those who believe we can accomplish our housing goals entirely within our borders (I do not share that view).
But perhaps if we could focus on just two key and oft-mentioned criteria—density and affordability, which actually intersect at several points—we could cut to the chase and get out in front of the developers’ proposals.
I’ll state my own preference: limited city expansion with a minimum density of 12 units per acre. That would allow attached housing such as duplexes, triplexes and townhouses, and anything denser, but not single-family detached. I think we have more than enough already, much of it under-occupied by empty nester seniors like myself, and such low density development is a prime contributor to climate change through increased car trips and loss of farmland. Plus, it’s virtually impossible to build a detached single family house that is affordable to families who make more than the “affordable” caps but less than 160% of median income.
But attached houses inherently are less valuable than detached, so while they wouldn’t exactly be cheap in Davis, they could compete with new housing in West Sacramento and Woodland and perhaps even draw back some of the younger families with children that we are losing to those cities. Just thirty to forty acres could easily accommodate all 299 of the “Above Moderate Income” units allotted to Davis under our Housing Element and at prices notably below the median of $900,000 (per Redfin and Zillow).
Achieving some level of legitimacy to any point of view on minimum density and affordability will be arduous at best, but taking baby steps rather than waiting for an entire new General Plan could get us back in the driver’s seat. I suggest tabling the LEED ND approach until we are clear that at least some proposals are heading in our preferred direction. Two of the five actually aren’t far off what I’ve described; perhaps the others would get closer if they only knew what we want.
I don’t believe that Davis can “compete” with housing in those communities – particularly for families with children. These are also the type of folks who want square footage, yards, and garage space for at least two cars – at a price that’s appealing to them.
Nor do I know why anyone in Davis specifically “wants” those particular populations – other than those associated with the school district. But even then, kids from these other communities can attend the Davis school district.
Davis is going to have to address the current RHNA targets without including unapproved peripheral developments. But again, these targets are going to fail – statewide (in terms of actually getting built). And this will become increasingly obvious, if it isn’t already.
Though “thirty-to-forty” acres is certainly-preferable to “400” acres.
Chiles Ranch (infill) should (someday) supply another 100 or so of them, as well as the development on Pole Line Road (forgotten how many that’s on track to supply.)
There was an article on here the other day, listing all of the potential infill sites.
But more importantly, there is a constant supply of existing housing added to Zillow, just about every day. (The $580K single-family house that’s on there today seems appealing.)
No one is “banned” from Davis, nor are they going to get a “better deal” by waiting for some developer to build them a new one.
For that matter, this is probably the demographic group which “costs” the most to serve, in terms of demand for schools, playfields, libraries, accommodating vehicles, etc.
But again, all existing housing eventually turns over. And if it doesn’t, what happens to the “demographics” of NEW housing, over time? Or is the plan to just keep building “new” housing forever, to ensure that there’s a continuing supply of “families” with kids?
There is no way this has any legitimacy (or viability) whatsoever.
For that matter, each generation is getting smaller at this point (fewer kids). Millennials and those that follow are not having kids at a level to replace themselves. (That’s also the reason that there will be a housing “glut”, as boomers die-off.) Again, not just my opinion – it’s documented (which is how I found out about it in the first place).
It’s not mathematically possible to meet the targets without peripheral developments. Judy Corbett’s article even included Village Farms which will have to be approved as a peripheral development (and as pointed out by David, there were several projects which were already counted in the RHNA starting base so the gap is larger than portrayed.)
I’m not sure how building sufficient new housing is a guarantee that the same amount of new housing will be built in perpetuity into the future. We don’t build new housing at the same rate as we did in the 1960s when the population was growing much faster. The market will adjust to the demand. But right now, the housing market isn’t building fast enough. Price is the single best indicator of latent demand (alluding to “free” markets) and the U.S. market is now at the most unaffordable level in decades. That’s due to a lack of supply (incomes are still rising). That indicates there is a shortage.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4609445-us-housing-is-a-dead-man-walking-update-2023
Perhaps a member of the “flat earth society” can believe that somehow California will be shielded from the increase in global population but history tells us that immigration has been and likely will be a major factor in population growth going forward.
Tell that to all of the densely-populated cities along the coast, which aren’t expanding outward (and yet are the targets of the state’s efforts).
How many times will this need to be pointed out, with no logical response from the growth activists? I’ve done so at least a dozen times, and none have been able to respond at all.
Nor have they had any response to the series of articles showing that RHNA targets will fail elsewhere. (Well, there were some feeble attacks on the messenger, but that’s all they had.)
And yet, these development activists keep repeating irrelevant comments, as if that’s evidence of anything.
Right – from a member of the family which proposed/failed Covell Village. Now renamed as Village Farms.
And that’s another thing – why do developers believe that renaming their proposal makes any difference (e.g., MRIC, ARC, DISC . . .)? Do they actually think that folks have that short of a memory?
And by the way, how “unfortunate” it is, that Genentech is shutting down in Vacaville. Wasn’t this held up as a “model” for DISC?
And wasn’t the fact that it located in Vacaville used as a “reason” to attack Measure J, as well?
Well – if this company employs any Davis residents, there’s some more Davis housing “freed-up”.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/genentech-to-close-plant-near-sacramento-following-bay-area-layoffs/ar-AA1cd0iR?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=def3740f766d4736b09e8f21fd14b2db&ei=15
(At the very least, HCD should consider reducing Vacaville’s RHNA targets, going forward. As well as South San Francisco’s.)
And of course, San Francisco’s RHNA targets weren’t reduced at all – despite a significant drop in population.
Go “figure” – as I can’t (and neither can HCD – per the state auditor).
And yet, folks continue electing the same people behind this (Newsom, Wiener, Bonta, etc.) – and expecting a different result??
(Actually, you can apply that same principle to the local council.)
Genentech was a Davis/ UC Davis start up company that located in Vacaville instead of Davis and became a multibillion company.
And now those employees (and the city itself) will have to find something else to fill that gaping hole left behind.
Note how they’re going to close it down – whether or not they find a buyer.
Of course they’ve been in Vacaville for 25 years.
Even worse, as they’ve grown that much-more dependent upon it.
By the way, here’s the link (which was embedded in the article above):
https://www.sfgate.com/tech/article/bay-area-layoffs-january-2023-17731719.php
“Genentech was a Davis/ UC Davis start up company that located in Vacaville instead of Davis and became a multibillion company.”
What you smoking David?
https://www.gene.com/about-us/leadership/our-founders
I guess I misremembered:
This from 1994…
“Genentech passes on Davis, chooses Vacaville for new plant site
By TODD PERLMAN AGGIE CITY EDITOR
Davis was dropped last week from the list of potential Northern California sites for anew Genentech plant, losing out on more than 300 new jobs. Genentech, a Bay Area biotechnical research, development and manufacturing firm, informed Mayor Dave Rosenberg on Wednesday of its decision to locate in Vacaville rather than Davis. “